Re: [css-images] Lifting restrictions on nesting image-set()

On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently, the image-set() function forbids more image-set()s from
> nested inside of it, either directly or inside of other <image> values
> (like nesting within a cross-fade()).
> 
> On the call two weeks ago, I said that I don't think this restriction
> is actually needed.  It was originally added due to the complexity of
> handling fallback across nested things, but we removed the fallback
> ability so that we could later produce a well-tuned fallback()
> function or something similar that handled all the fallback properly.
> 
> Now, though, it shouldn't be hard.  Nesting them is still *weird*, and
> there's no reason to do so, but there's no reason to *restrict* it,
> which requires additional code to detect and enforce.
> 
> (I don't currently properly define how the resolution change actually
> gets applied to the image; however I define it, some answer will fall
> out for what nesting them means.  The actual answer isn't important,
> because there's no use-case for nesting them.)

Would it be harmful to investigate in a later version of the spec? In general I like the idea but think that browser need to catch up first. Deep nesting can be tricky. What about a MAY in the spec that turns into a MUST later?

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> ~TJ
>

Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 06:59:22 UTC